G.R. No. 200344. August 28, 2019.
GLENN M. MILLER, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS, NAMELY: [1] EVELYN L. MILLER; [2] JENNIFER ANN L. MILLER; [3] LESLIE ANN L. MILLER; [4] RACHEL ANN L. MILLER; AND [5] VALERIE ANN L. MILLER, PETITIONERS, VS. JOAN MILLER Y ESPENIDA A.K.A. JOHNLYN MILLER Y ESPENIDA AND THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF GUBAT, SORSOGON, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

John Miller and Beatriz Marcaida were legally married and had four legitimate children, including Glenn M. Miller. After John’s death, Joan Miller y Espenida, through her mother Lennie Espenida, filed a Petition for Partition and Accounting of John’s estate, alleging she was John’s illegitimate child. She presented her Certificate of Live Birth showing John as her father. Glenn filed a separate Petition for Correction of Entries, praying for the cancellation of Joan’s birth certificate, the replacement of her surname “Miller” with “Espenida,” and an order for Joan to use “Espenida” in all official documents. Glenn claimed John did not acknowledge Joan, pointing out John’s signature was absent from her birth certificate and that it was not shown John consented to his name being indicated. Joan countered that she was born from John and Lennie’s relationship, that John openly and continuously recognized her as his child during his lifetime, and presented evidence including a holographic will giving her a share of his estate, letters, and a document designating her half-sister Betty as her guardian. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Joan, dismissing Glenn’s petition and ordering her to continue using “Miller.” The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Glenn’s heirs (petitioners) elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court Judgment allowing private respondent Joan Miller y Espenida to continue using the surname Miller.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The Court held that a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not the proper proceeding to challenge the legitimacy and filiation of a child. Such matters are substantial and controversial, requiring an adversarial proceeding where all indispensable parties are notified. The Court emphasized that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, as well as their right to use a surname, cannot be collaterally attacked in a mere petition for correction of entries. The proper remedy for petitioners, if they wished to contest Joan’s filiation, was to file a separate action directly impugning her status as an illegitimate child. Since the petition filed was merely for correction of entries, the trial court correctly dismissed it. The Court also referred the petitioners’ administrative complaint against the trial court judge to the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation.